Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Mary_H]

I'd mention the number "39" here, but I tried that a few weeks ago and the whole thread went to pot!

Are you sure that number wasn't "420?"

 

[Methos]

Is Amanda's representation appealing the guilty-of-slander verdict at the SC?

This whole thing is so demented.

Yes they are, there's a thread called "Amanda's appeal" over at IIP (on the fourth page of the forum).

 

[LondonJohn]

This article should be added to an ever-lengthening list of evidence that shows that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects well before the beginning of their his and hers interrogations on the night of 5 November. Malkmus has turned up a couple of good citations as well, and Raffaele's telling of the how a cop put the business card of a lawyer into his hands is another brick in the wall.

And here's another one for the file:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568638/Students-flatmate-heard-screams-in-bedroom.html

In this one, De Felice adds yet more revealing insight into what the police thought they "knew to be correct" before Knox even sat down for her 5th/6th November interrogation (my highlighting):

Mr De Felice said: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."

He said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

This indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the police believed Knox had lied to them about her whereabouts on the night of the murder, and that they believed they had evidence that Knox had "fixed a meeting" with the recipient of the text message (even if they might not initially have known the identity of the text recipient).

And what's more, this passage also shows conclusively that the police - by definition - had all of this "knowledge" well before Knox finally "crumbled" and made the "confession/accusation". They must without doubt have made this connection from the very moment they saw the "see you later" text message's contents, and it's also highly likely that they believed they had caught Knox in a guilty lie well before the evening of the 5th November.

Therefore, also by definition, two things are likely to be true: 1) Knox should have been declared a formal suspect well before she "crumbled", and 2) All of her "confession/accusation" statements, including the initial oral one and every subsequent written one, should never have been considered "spontaneous declarations" - it's clear that the police confronted her with the "truth" as they saw it, and simply pressed, cajoled and bullied her until she agreed with their version.

 

[anglolawyer]

And here's another one for the file:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568638/Students-flatmate-heard-screams-in-bedroom.html

In this one, De Felice adds yet more revealing insight into what the police thought they "knew to be correct" before Knox even sat down for her 5th/6th November interrogation (my highlighting):



This indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the police believed Knox had lied to them about her whereabouts on the night of the murder, and that they believed they had evidence that Knox had "fixed a meeting" with the recipient of the text message (even if they might not initially have known the identity of the text recipient).

And what's more, this passage also shows conclusively that the police - by definition - had all of this "knowledge" well before Knox finally "crumbled" and made the "confession/accusation". They must without doubt have made this connection from the very moment they saw the "see you later" text message's contents, and it's also highly likely that they believed they had caught Knox in a guilty lie well before the evening of the 5th November.

Therefore, also by definition, two things are likely to be true: 1) Knox should have been declared a formal suspect well before she "crumbled", and 2) All of her "confession/accusation" statements, including the initial oral one and every subsequent written one, should never have been considered "spontaneous declarations" - it's clear that the police confronted her with the "truth" as they saw it, and simply pressed, cajoled and bullied her until she agreed with their version.

Back up there LJ! Did you just publish a quote that said this:

The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba. Text messages. On her phone. From Lumumba.

 

[anglolawyer]

Because, if that happened it shows Amanda did not delete Lumumba's message, the cops did and the cops already knew Lumumba was their man before the interrogations, jest like I been a-sayin'!

It also means the cops played dirty even before one black got switched for another. Why delete the message? Because it did not say 'see you in Piazza Grimana in 5 minutes'. How much better to make a big deal of Patrick's and Amanda's slightly different versions of Lumumba's message at the hearing before Matteini?

The mystery would then be why Amanda told the court she deleted it. That part of the transcript contains a moment of hesitation or discomfort if anyone has the wherewithal to track it down. Could it be her lawyers advised her to lie about it so as not to attract another slander claim or to totally alienate the court? Or was Amanda just confused into thinking the cops would never do such a thing so she must have done it herself?

Anyways, there it is right slap bang in the Telegraph article. I do like it when the facts arrange themselves to fit a nice theory.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because, if that happened it shows Amanda did not delete Lumumba's message, the cops did and the cops already knew Lumumba was their man before the interrogations, jest like I been a-sayin'!

It also means the cops played dirty even before one black got switched for another. Why delete the message? Because it did not say 'see you in Piazza Grimana in 5 minutes'. How much better to make a big deal of Patrick's and Amanda's slightly different versions of Lumumba's message at the hearing before Matteini?

The mystery would then be why Amanda told the court she deleted it. That part of the transcript contains a moment of hesitation or discomfort if anyone has the wherewithal to track it down. Could it be her lawyers advised her to lie about it so as not to attract another slander claim or to totally alienate the court? Or was Amanda just confused into thinking the cops would never do such a thing so she must have done it herself?

Anyways, there it is right slap bang in the Telegraph article. I do like it when the facts arrange themselves to fit a nice theory.

Yes, I noticed that myself - however, I'm inclined to believe that this was a mistake either from De Felice or from the reporter.

Of course, your theory - that perhaps the police discovered a message from Lumumba in Knox's inbox which tended to contradict their "meeting up that night" theory, and that they therefore deleted it - is possible. But, as you say, it's rather unlikely that Knox would have had no recollection of this message's existence in her inbox.

Futhermore, I think that it's entirely feasible that in 2007* Knox would have deleted incoming SMS messages after she had read them (and/or replied to them), but that she was unaware that all sent messages were stored in a "sent" folder (plus the fact that she would have had to carry out a number of different key-push operations to delete any sent messages, whereas the deletion of a newly-read incoming SMS is comparatively short and simple).

If the phrase "...from Lumumba" is a mistake in some way, this still leaves the damning evidence that the police knew about Knox's SMS interaction with Lumumba in advance of Knox "crumbling", and that they "knew" from Knox's last outgoing message that she and Lumumba had made firm plans to meet up that night. Of course, if your theory is correct, then it's even more damning evidence of the police's preconception and malpractice. However, at the moment, I tend to think that there was no such stored incoming SMS message on Knox's handset, and that the "...from Lumumba" phrase is merely a mistake.

Incidentally, there's another mistake - or at the very least an ambiguity - in the very same sentence in that article (my highlighting):

The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

If this sentence is read logically, it tends to imply that the "meeting" itself was scheduled to take place at 8.35pm - rather than that the message arranging/confirming the "meeting" was sent at 8.35pm. This is obviously of potential relevance, since if Knox and Lumumba had indeed arranged to meet up at 8.35pm, this gives them a huge window of possibility within which to have participated in the murder.

And since we know the true reality of the evidence in this regard - that it was the text message which was sent at that time, and that it was not the scheduled time of any "meeting" - we know that this is a definite mistake. However, we do not of course know whether the mistake may have been willful on the part of De Felice, or whether it was a genuine error either from him or from the reporter.


* In 2007, all handsets displayed notifications and content of SMS on a message-by-message unlinked basis. By contrast, many of today's handsets (including the iPhone) store and display text messages in a "conversation" format, showing each sent and received message to each particular number in a chronological series.

 

[anglolawyer]

And if they deleted it they did so between 1.45 and 5.45 on 06 Nov. Just compare the two 'spontaneous statement' (the quotation marks are Hellman's)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7984881&postcount=1393

1.45 AK receives text from Patrick at about 8.30 p.m. - no need to come to work, no customers.
5.45
'I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"]'

In the later statement, the nature of Patrick's message has gone (and with it the context of the exchange).

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, I noticed that myself - however, I'm inclined to believe that this was a mistake either from De Felice or from the reporter.

Of course, your theory - that perhaps the police discovered a message from Lumumba in Knox's inbox which tended to contradict their "meeting up that night" theory, and that they therefore deleted it - is possible. But, as you say, it's rather unlikely that Knox would have had no recollection of this message's existence in her inbox.

Futhermore, I think that it's entirely feasible that in 2007* Knox would have deleted incoming SMS messages after she had read them (and/or replied to them), but that she was unaware that all sent messages were stored in a "sent" folder (plus the fact that she would have had to carry out a number of different key-push operations to delete any sent messages, whereas the deletion of a newly-read incoming SMS is comparatively short and simple).

If the phrase "...from Lumumba" is a mistake in some way, this still leaves the damning evidence that the police knew about Knox's SMS interaction with Lumumba in advance of Knox "crumbling", and that they "knew" from Knox's last outgoing message that she and Lumumba had made firm plans to meet up that night. Of course, if your theory is correct, then it's even more damning evidence of the police's preconception and malpractice. However, at the moment, I tend to think that there was no such stored incoming SMS message on Knox's handset, and that the "...from Lumumba" phrase is merely a mistake.

Incidentally, there's another mistake - or at the very least an ambiguity - in the very same sentence in that article (my highlighting):



If this sentence is read logically, it tends to imply that the "meeting" itself was scheduled to take place at 8.35pm - rather than that the message arranging/confirming the "meeting" was sent at 8.35pm. This is obviously of potential relevance, since if Knox and Lumumba had indeed arranged to meet up at 8.35pm, this gives them a huge window of possibility within which to have participated in the murder.

And since we know the true reality of the evidence in this regard - that it was the text message which was sent at that time, and that it was not the scheduled time of any "meeting" - we know that this is a definite mistake. However, we do not of course know whether the mistake may have been willful on the part of De Felice, or whether it was a genuine error either from him or from the reporter.


* In 2007, all handsets displayed notifications and content of SMS on a message-by-message unlinked basis. By contrast, many of today's handsets (including the iPhone) store and display text messages in a "conversation" format, showing each sent and received message to each particular number in a chronological series.

No LJ. Read logically or not, in the 1.45 statement she says she got Patrick's message at 8.30 p.m. and, by the way, the fact she gives a precise time is yet another indicator that she had not deleted the message, since the time was presumably still retrievable from her phone.

 

[LondonJohn]

No LJ. Read logically or not, in the 1.45 statement she says she got Patrick's message at 8.30 p.m. and, by the way, the fact she gives a precise time is yet another indicator that she had not deleted the message, since the time was presumably still retrievable from her phone.

Nooo I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that the Telegraph news story tends to imply that the meeting was set up to take place at 8.35pm. Not that Knox tends to imply it, nor that the actual known evidence tends to imply it.

I know (and you know, and everyone who knows the case knows) that the reality is that it was the text exchange which took place between around 8.30pm and 8.45pm (culminating in Knox's "see you later" text). What I was asking is why the Telegraph article - apparently paraphrasing De Felice - tends to imply that it was the meeting itself that was scheduled for 8.35pm, rather than this being the time of the text interaction.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: perhaps a re-read of this paragraph in my earlier post might help to clarify my position:

And since we know the true reality of the evidence in this regard - that it was the text message which was sent at that time, and that it was not the scheduled time of any "meeting" - we know that this is a definite mistake. However, we do not of course know whether the mistake may have been willful on the part of De Felice, or whether it was a genuine error either from him or from the reporter.

 

[Grinder]

Anglo,

I respectfully must disagree with your message erasing theory. In a shocking turn of events I agree with LJ that in these early stories much was mistaken in detail. It is possible that something was lost in Google translation getting to the british tabs. There were stories that had Meredith's window broken, implying that the murder (sic) had locked the door from the inside. The famous bleach receipts that only exist in Michael's world. The witness that saw Amanda with northern Africans at a laundromat in the middle of the night.

The calumny definition came from Wikipedia.

I'm still curious where the slander discussion came from. I do not recall a slander conviction being upheld by Hellmann. Did I forget it?

 

[anglolawyer]

Nooo I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that the Telegraph news story tends to imply that the meeting was set up to take place at 8.35pm. Not that Knox tends to imply it, nor that the actual known evidence tends to imply it.

I know (and you know, and everyone who knows the case knows) that the reality is that it was the text exchange which took place between around 8.30pm and 8.45pm (culminating in Knox's "see you later" text). What I was asking is why the Telegraph article - apparently paraphrasing De Felice - tends to imply that it was the meeting itself that was scheduled for 8.35pm, rather than this being the time of the text interaction.

Sorry, I was in a rush when I skimmed and replied to your post. However, the Telegraph story is right about the time of the meeting:

'I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.'

So, the message came in at 8.30 (and I am betting it was not Amanda who knew the precise time of the text but the cops, whether from the phone or from the telephone records) and Amanda responded saying she would see him 'at once'. Now, the interesting thing is that in the 5.45 statement the 'at once' disappears. Could that be to allow Mignini more wriggle-room to construct the timeline? If not, why is it missing? This part of the comparison between the 1.45 and 5.45 statements is particularly intriguing IMO.

 

[Grinder]

So, the message came in at 8.30 (and I am betting it was not Amanda who knew the precise time of the text but the cops, whether from the phone or from the telephone records) and Amanda responded saying she would see him 'at once'. Now, the interesting thing is that in the 5.45 statement the 'at once' disappears. Could that be to allow Mignini more wriggle-room to construct the timeline? If not, why is it missing? This part of the comparison between the 1.45 and 5.45 statements is particularly intriguing IMO.

The police misinterpreted the message she sent "we you later" into see you soon as in now. I think you are giving the police and Mignini far too credit and blame during that time period. I'm sure they thought they had their case solved and that Amanda was in some involved and perhaps even part of the murder. The idea that they were in some way working to frame her at that time doesn't hunt.

There were probably different people involved in writing the two statements.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo,

I respectfully must disagree with your message erasing theory. In a shocking turn of events I agree with LJ that in these early stories much was mistaken in detail. It is possible that something was lost in Google translation getting to the british tabs. There were stories that had Meredith's window broken, implying that the murder (sic) had locked the door from the inside. The famous bleach receipts that only exist in Michael's world. The witness that saw Amanda with northern Africans at a laundromat in the middle of the night.

This is indeed shocking but I am not unduly dismayed. The case for anglo's theory stacks up every day. Maybe the unreliability of the very early stories is explained by the great confusion surrounding the events but the Telegraph story is reporting a more managed release of info and the report does seem to me to be stating something De Felice said:

He [De Felice] said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

This is a report of a press conference. Anyhow, maybe one of you sleuths could find another report of this same press conference to see whether this part is repeated by anyone else.

The calumny definition came from Wikipedia.

Thanks. I hope you noticed it was basic calunnia, not aggravated calunnia because the distinction is important.

I snipped the rest of your post (re: slander)

 

[Bill Williams]

Nooo I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that the Telegraph news story tends to imply that the meeting was set up to take place at 8.35pm. Not that Knox tends to imply it, nor that the actual known evidence tends to imply it.

I know (and you know, and everyone who knows the case knows) that the reality is that it was the text exchange which took place between around 8.30pm and 8.45pm (culminating in Knox's "see you later" text). What I was asking is why the Telegraph article - apparently paraphrasing De Felice - tends to imply that it was the meeting itself that was scheduled for 8.35pm, rather than this being the time of the text interaction.

I know not everyone here reads books, but it is on this point that I will go to first in Knox's book, "Waiting to be heard."

Just as Raffaele's book filled in all sorts of unknowns about his own interrogation, in the absence of a court record nothing really much was known about the events of the next room.

Of all the potential pivotal events of this mess, the bit about the handling of the text from and to Lumumba on Knox's phone seems the most pivotal.

 

[anglolawyer]

The police misinterpreted the message she sent "we you later" into see you soon as in now. I think you are giving the police and Mignini far too credit and blame during that time period. I'm sure they thought they had their case solved and that Amanda was in some involved and perhaps even part of the murder. The idea that they were in some way working to frame her at that time doesn't hunt.

There were probably different people involved in writing the two statements.

Must I waste my genius on these people?

I have said, over and over again until I am blue in the face, it is not a question of either they thought she was guilty or they tried to frame her. Please try to break out of your comfortable middle class world of condos and yachts and look at these people!

I float this theory and challenge you to find one single fact (properly verifiable) which falsifies it. One.*

My theory

The cops believed they had it all figured out when they hauled Raffaele in. Amanda had agreed to meet Lumumba in the area of the square to take him to see Meredith, that's how come there was no sign of a forced entry. Telephone records showed they exchanged texts at a suspicious time and (this part I am hazy about, I think it comes from Matteini) Lumumba's cell phone, one of them, was picked up in the area at the requisite time. That's it. Lumumba called Amanda at the police station on the afternoon/evening of 02 Nov. This will have been picked up. He met her on the morning of 05 Nov to evade telephone surveillance but was seen. Lumumba was black. End of.

The plan was to break Raffaele because the cops knew he was providing the whore with a false alibi. That's all they wanted from him. That worked and then they turned on her. That worked too. By 1.45 they had a signed statement with these features:

1 it left Raffaele in the clear
2 it had her meeting Lumumba 'at once' after receiving his text at 8.30 p.m. after lying to Raffaele
3 it recorded his text message as saying no need to come to work because no customers

By 5.45 on these three points anyways they had:

1 Raffaele now implicated
2 there is no longer a lie to Raffaele, instead:

'I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"]. We met immediately afterward around 9:00 pm'

3 there is no longer any reference to Lumumba's text.

All of this (both versions) is complete bull, except the exchange of texts, which is correct but slanted. From out of whose head did it come, hers or theirs? In another shocking development I agree with Bill that they decided to arrest the alibi between 1.45 and 5.45 and delete Lumumba's text both literally and historically since it was contrary to what they knew. That is, it complicated things and they did not like it. So they (someone) deleted it.

I put this into the same category as the random retrieval of the knife on the morning of 06 Nov and the amazing discovery of Pasquale/i to prove Lumumba's bar was shut.

Now I have the Telegraph article, I am pronouncing case chiuso on this.

*Other than Amanda's testimony.

 

[anglolawyer]

PS: perhaps a re-read of this paragraph in my earlier post might help to clarify my position:

And since we know the true reality of the evidence in this regard - that it was the text message which was sent at that time, and that it was not the scheduled time of any "meeting" - we know that this is a definite mistake. However, we do not of course know whether the mistake may have been willful on the part of De Felice, or whether it was a genuine error either from him or from the reporter.

We do know this came from the police not the reporter. It is in Amanda's 'confessions', as I have posted.

 

[acbytesla]

Must I waste my genius on these people?

I have said, over and over again until I am blue in the face, it is not a question of either they thought she was guilty or they tried to frame her. Please try to break out of your comfortable middle class world of condos and yachts and look at these people!

I float this theory and challenge you to find one single fact (properly verifiable) which falsifies it. One.*

Which yacht? The Octopus or the Medusa?

 

[anglolawyer]

Which yacht? The Octopus or the Medusa?

Does everyone over there have two?

 

[acbytesla]

Does everyone over there have two?

I don't think so. But you can get a look at them if you Google them. I think the Octopus is particularly nice.